Talk:Joke
Expanding I am adding to this as I come across them. This may take some time. Lt. T 02:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC) There is a good one in VOY "Riddles" about a ensign stranded on a planet and there is an extended punch line at the end of the edisode. Lt. T 04:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Dictionary How is having an article on "joke" any different than having an article on burning the midnight oil? I mean, we are not a dictionary right and everyone kows what a joke is. So, why are we having a separate entry for it? I am asking because i am genuinely confused as to when we'd cross the line to just dictionary entry. There is no article on sarcasm - which, just like joke, has been used many many times in Star Trek. So anyone care to clarify? – Distantlycharmed 22:39, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :Listing the jokes actually referred to as jokes, and the interactions Data had with them is useful. Burning the midnight oil was a random phrase, and this isn't the place to complain about how that page was put up for deletion. -- sulfur 22:48, January 24, 2011 (UTC) This is exactly the place to bring up this discussion because as I said, I want to understand the rationale. I am fine with creating an idioms page for various cultures and species (not just humans on Earth) but given the rationale used to make "burning the midnight oil" an idiom "because we are not a dictionary" while "joke" is not considered a dictionary entry, eludes me. Data also used "burning the midnight oil" in an episode, taking its literal meaning etc. There is nothing wrong with wanting clarification so that mistakes arent repeated. – Distantlycharmed 23:11, January 24, 2011 (UTC) ::The difference is that this is not "just" a dictionary entry, but much more on top of that. It is possible for this article to be more, because "joke" is not just a word of the english language, or an abstract idea like the idiom you've mentioned, but also a class of objects. In a nutshell, joke is not equal to "Burning the midnight oil", but to "idiom". -- Cid Highwind 00:01, January 25, 2011 (UTC) What? Joke is not equal to burning the midnight oil but to idiom? And much more on top of that? What does that mean anyway? Let's just drop it before it turns into another pointless debate with equally pointless justifications. Thank you. – Distantlycharmed 00:57, January 25, 2011 (UTC) :::So...we should drop it because you didn't like the answers? He means that Joke isn't the same as "burning the midnight oil" but more akin to a classification...like starships, or humans. We have many wonderful examples of jokes told throughout the series and this page provides a nice place to expound upon these jokes. Otherwise there'd be no page for you, as a reader, to go to and see what kind of stuff has been said other than "...but the ferengi in the gorilla suit have to go." So clearly there's a need for this page - whether or not it belongs at this title is a different discussion. — Morder (talk) 01:21, January 25, 2011 (UTC) No I think it should be dropped because first of all, I am not sure if he even used English to make his point as I cannot decipher that sentence (sorry) and because I know where this is gonna go. Nowhere. Unless you'd like to spend 20k discussing this without resolution. I already mentioned that while understand the use of idioms, Data used the term specifically (midnight oil) and then turned it around by interpreting it with its literal meaning. Based on that alone, if nothing else, it should not have been seen as an inferior form of communication or word or whatever not deserving its own article. I am not saying there is no need for this page, I am saying there is also a need for the other one. Just the fact that it is called "joke", like a dictionary entry without any context, should give us a clue. – Distantlycharmed 01:32, January 25, 2011 (UTC) :::Then sulfur is correct - this isn't the right place to discuss whether or not the other page should exist. It should only be on that page or the appropriate for deletion page. — Morder (talk) 02:18, January 25, 2011 (UTC)